TexasCHLforum.com

superchief wrote:I'm not trying to put down any CHL holders/carriers, whether they train or not. You don't have to take training to exercise your 1st amendment rights, so I support no requirement to be a good shot to practice your 2nd amendment rights.

The thread started out with whether people should be exposed to [Pre-paid legal service] or other products during class. My comment was only intended to point out how important legal representation will be when one of the 914K does have to fire their gun in hate.

It would seem your legal troubles (if it's a justified shooting) will be fewer if you can X-ring the bad guy while moving, sitting on the ground, laying on the ground, with your other hand, etc. If you can't, you might go from justified shooting to being the killer of a child behind your target. The way I've seen many students shoot, the world needs to be wearing kevlar.

I think you meant "in haste". "In hate" might require more than just legal protection. In fact, if used in the act of a crime, these pre-paid legal things won't pay.

As for as supporting no requirement to be a good shot, I supposed that's a logical argument. Of course, the consequences of exercising your 1st amendment "without training" might, at best, make you look like a fool or, at worst, get you a punch in the mouth. But exercising your 2nd amendment rights "without training" might land you in jail for 20 years and lose most of your hard earned worldly possessions. Just imagine what would have happened if one of the two misses of Officer Wilson had hit an innocent kid 500 yards down range. "Hands up, don't shoot" would be the least of his worries!

As for the OP, in my last class, I simply cited the written statute that says basically, "this defense to criminal prosecution does not extend to limiting civil liability" or something like that. It's actually written in the code, I think, in the Deadly Force section. That's a natural place to insert the "see me after class for information about [pre paid legal]." I'm also going to add to my already long 4 hour class about 30 minutes worth of basic ammo, holster, and firearm selection. We do advanced classes too but I figure I can just brush on it in the CHL class. Of course, we sell guns, ammo, and holsters. But I can just imagine the girl who gets her CHL and barely shoots a qualifying score, and loaded her ammo backwards, decides to put the ball ammo in her carry gun because "it's cheaper". So, they all need a quick overview on ammo and stuff. I'm getting a projector today so I can put pictures and whatnot in the presentation. Point being, just because we sell something, that shouldn't mean we shouldn't talk about it in class as long as it's relevant. The CHL class is required to teach four modules but it even has room on the chl-100 for adding other material that you talk about. So, ya, they paid for the class but that doesn't mean it's abhorrent to discuss relevant things that might cost money. I also mention that we have advanced classes they can take later. Is that taboo because those aren't included or required?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
You paint a pretty dim view of CHL's. Now show me the statistics that show 914,000+ CHLs have been a problem. I'll save you some time, no such data exists.

I'm a big proponent of training, but the current CHL course has been around for 20 years and CHLs are not a threat to public safety.

Chas.

Of the 914,000 CHLs, how many have used their gun where their CHL was relevant (as in, not at home, business, or car)? With so many CHLs, how is all of this violent crime still going unchecked. In a certain wonderful way, I guess you could say it's self policing. I'm an engineer by education so I can appreciate statistics. Of the three CHLs in my extended household (my mother, my wife, and myself), only one EVER carries a gun. In my circle of friends, my wife took a class with her friend (who DID shoot 250) and her friend doesn't even own a gun much less carry one. Sure, that's not a "representative population", but I'm also sure it's common. But many of the CHLs who AREN'T proficient choose not to carry for a variety of reasons. And maybe that's part of why it hasn't been a problem. You're more dialed in than me. Is there any data out there that shows the number of CHLs who do carry on a regular basis?

So to say there are 914,000 CHLs without a problem kinda of skews the data. It suggests there are 914,000 civilians walking around with guns everyday. I don't have anything to support this, but I speculate less than 1/4 of them carry. Maybe as low as 10%. Which, ironically, is unfortunate. As for crimes committed by CHLs, DPS does publish a report and I believe it's merely statistical showing "crimes committed" and "was the person a licensee", not to suggest they had a gun on them at the time or used one in a crime. CHL holders are much less likely to have committed a crime than John Q Public. Of course, this is also somewhat irrelevant since you cannot even get a CHL (generally) with a criminal history and much of the crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

In the end, I agree that in 20 years there hasn't been a rash of CHLs shooting up schools or robbing places...or trying to defend themselves and killing innocent bystanders with crappy marksmanship. But I also would be interested in seeing how many of the 914,000 didn't have a gun with them at a place and time that an offense was happening.

As a final case in point, a firearms instructor friend and customer of mine is in once per week at least. He leaves his gun(s) in the truck. I always wondered what he'd think if I said, "So you don't think anyone would rob or assault you in this store?" Why would you leave your "option" in the truck? Sure, I'll do my best to protect you with my firearm, but it'd be nice to have this grand master shooter/instructor help me out.

superchief wrote:Many of my students scare the heck out of me. I purposely and passionately tell them NOT to carry their gun if they're not going to practice. I know, i know, 2nd amendment and all that stuff. I encounter many many many many many students that can barely pass their test, and openly admit that they haven't practiced in quite a while and I don't get the impression that they will start just because I ask them to.

I just taught a CHL class with 12 students. Not one shot 250. One girl loaded her magazine backwards (the cartridges bullets first). While we're not supposed to "teach" per se, I did figure it was a safety issue so I told her "they go the other way". One student didn't pass the first time but she did on the reshoot at the end of it. The first time she was gripping like a lefty and pulling the trigger with her right index finger. She figured it out by the second run. Apparently her husband told her she wouldn't pass and was being mean to her before the class. Hopefully that's not why she was taking the class!

I didn't see ONE even remotely decent shooter. The good news is that most of them know it and about half of them are planning on taking some of my other classes (intro, post CHL 1, post CHL 2).

My own mother decided not to carry despite having her CHL because she's too dingy. She nearly flagged the line and would have if I didn't grab her hand with the gun. Too easily distracted. We need more RESPONSIBLE gun owners carrying, for sure. Did you know in some states the shooting requirement fails you for ANY misses. That kind of makes sense. If you miss even once, that's one bullet heading downrange and not into the assailant.

JALLEN wrote:It would be worth your while to read the bond before you rely on it. Bonds don't work the way most people imagine.

honestly, I was thinking about doing a little more due diligence for my own peace of mind, too. For example, "how many claims have you had" and then see if there's a way to see how the claim was handled. Obviously the creator (usually a lawyer from what it appears) wants to take in more premiums than the payout on claims. Welcome to insurance. But it'd be nice to see some feedback on how claims were handled. Kind of like seeing a A+ BBB rating. Have these guys actually executed the plan they pitch or is it still basically theory?

It almost seems like it's crying for an investigative reporter like a Geraldo or John Stossel to check it out. I honestly don't have the knowledge or resources to fully investigate these guys. Hopefully they're not just a bunch of fly-by-night roofing companies who take 1/2 down on your roof repair and then skip town.

c.edgington wrote:
Not only that, but these options are beaten to DEATH. I can't watch a firearms channel on youtube without seeing a prepaid insurance commercial. It's EVERYWHERE... It's also un-ethical to take class time to discuss something like this. Certain situations are different, but forcing your PAID CAPTIVE AUDIENCE to listen to a sales pitch that you are getting compensated for allowing doesn't sit well with me.

I have heard of instructors saying, "here's another thing. If you'd like more information, stick around. Otherwise we're taking a 15 minute break."

Although, in my NRA Instructor class, we were VERY captive. At the beginning, I thought it was part of the NRA required class. Then, we were pitched NRA membership. It did run kind of long. And we felt like we weren't being let go until we all signed up. (I already had the pre-paid and was a life NRA member, but the other people weren't). So, I can appreciate the idea of not making people feel required to sit through it, but I also think it's okay to at least mention the concept or let people know it's available. Taking a minute or two to say, "here's a program... stick around for more info" ought not be too objectionable.

I'm sure the NRA is pretty happy about the instructors who mention, "If you're not a member of the NRA, I'd be happy to sign you up" too.

But I agree that it should be done in balance. Both the pre-paid legal and NRA membership could/should be considered at least by anyone getting a CHL. Can't imagine they'd be offended at the mere mention of it. I even mention the Armed Citizen section of the American Rifleman and think that's worth the price of admission in itself. ...and it's very relevant to people getting their CHL.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Feed&Guns wrote:

ArmedAndPolite wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Abraham wrote:I find sales pitches highly inappropriate when attending a CHL class.

And how much of Zimmerman's total defense costs would not have been paid by the popular pre-paidlegal plans? You make it sound like it would all be covered and that's not the case with many plans. That is my problem with many of the sales pitches; they don't begin to tell the whole story. If you want an expert, sorry that's out of your pocket. You want an investigator, that's on you. Full disclosure is lacking to put it mildly.

Chas.

That's a difficult question. Not sure which plans would paid what in his specific case. Another question to ask, apparently, is if it's a "reimbursement plan" or a "we'll pay it for you" plan. As I understand it, some plans make YOU pay the bill and then basically file for reimbursement.

Also, I would suspect that there is a bit of a typical insurance plan friction where they might classify certain elements as "that doesn't count". Like you mentioned, expert witnesses are commonly not covered. However, at just $129/yr for a single CHL holder, my question is "what's it matter"? Meaning, if you're at the point that you're worried about what they will and won't cover, if they cover ANYTHING, it'll surely be more than what you've paid in. If I remember correctly, Mr. Cotton is a lawyer so he, of all people, I think would acknowledge that 20 years of premiums ($2600) at the current rate wouldn't even put a dent in your legal bills. If the pre-paid legal company paid just $10,000 of it and then started making excuses, you still come out ahead.

Each plan seems to have different things they pay and don't: bail bond posting, per diem, whatever.

The thing I'd want to check on is to make sure they are legit (as much as they can be). As I understand it, the State of Texas has laws that require pre-paid legal services to have a bond to honor their obligations. I have asked companies before, "so, if I have $100,000 in bills, how do I know you didn't already spend all the premiums? How do I know you can pay my bills." To which I was educated about the bond requirement. But, that means you should maybe check to see that they are in good standing and current on their bond. There again, it's kind of like insurance. When the storm hits, you find out that wind driven rain is somehow "flood water" and now you're fighting with your insurance company to pay it. Or when you total your car, they somehow decided it was worth 1/2 what the market price would have been and you have to prove that it was worth more. To that end, it might be "insurance as usual". And if there was a catastrophic event, how do you even know your insurance company would have the money to pay all the claims. At some point, unfortunately, we just trust they do the right thing...and then you end up with Stanford Group, or Bernie Madoff, or Enron, or....any number of entities people have had faith in.

If I implied that it was "all expenses paid", that was wrong. But for the people who think it's a total sham, realize that if your legal bills (witnesses, et al) are $100,000, you are out $100,000 with no plan. If this plan pays $10,000 or $100,000, you're still ahead if you've only paid in $2600 over 20 years. Also, in a 15 minute sales pitch, I wouldn't expect them to fully disclose everything. When I got my credit card processing service, they said, "no contract". However, on page 23 of the 46 page contract of 6pt type, there it was: 3 year contract. I still have good rates, but I was flat out lied to about that aspect. Sales pitches are just that. I'd hope that people would do their own due diligence before signing up for anything anyway.

ArmedAndPolite wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Abraham wrote:I find sales pitches highly inappropriate when attending a CHL class.

I do too. I assume the relationship exists for the financial benefit of the instructor.
Although ours swore up and down that he didn't get "anything" from said well known law-whatever...

Yeah.... right. Somebody is getting something for this.

My class had a pitch also. I remember the pitch went something like,

"Defending yourself can cost over $100,000, even if you're innocent! But if you pay only 99$ per year, you're covered!"

I know sales and they sold pretty hard.

Well, of course it's a sales pitch. And if they said they weren't being compensated, that's almost surely a lie. But as for "avoid it like the plague", that'd be like saying "avoid any insurance (etc) sales pitch like the plague". Why not listen, make an informed decision, and decide if it's for you? I wouldn't care for the high pressure pitch, but being told "this product exists....". Now, I'd hope the CHL instructor vetted the program he was offering.

Incidentally, I know those programs will compensate "solicitors" about $30/year for a signup or renewal. It's their form of marketing. One program advertises on radio so maybe thats their advertising. Have you ever worked at a company where an investment advisor comes in and talks to you about retirement planning or "annuities" and protecting your retirement portfolio with guaranteed minimum rates of return? Many people have.

And it's not a scare tactic. Sure, there are plenty of stories in the news about justifiable use of force and no charges presented. I remember one such story where a hispanic (white at the time of the reporting) followed a suspicious black guy. The black guy started pounding his head into the concrete so he defended himself with his gun. Black teen dies. Justifiable use of force. See no problems there.....oh wait a sec. Thats right. The overzealous DA decided to press charges anyway despite there being basically no reason to. She caved to political pressure and the "defendant" racked up huge legal bills. Okay. Forget that story. Here's another one. This cop was being attacked by a giant "kid"...a gentle giant at that. He was in fear for his life and used his duty weapon in self-defense. Fortunately, the evidence and many eye witnesses corroborated his story and he was free to gooooo....no, wait a second. That's right. They sent it to a grand jury and tried to press the issue despite the overwhelming evidence. Not sure if the police union stepped up on that one but his life was ruined by a "good shoot" also.

So if you think that if you don't do anything wrong that you're in the clear, you're delusional. Maybe the "prepaid legal" isn't for you, but it might be for some. And just as the people in France are wishing they had CHLs right about now, if you find yourself on the other side of a new liberal DA in a "good shoot", you'll probably wish you had some "insurance". The retainer alone if you're locked up will exceed 20 years of "premiums" for these services. And remember the advice of the cops as they're handcuffing you: "You can tell it to the judge" and "if you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Tell that to Zimmerman and Ofc Wilson.

Even Joe Horn had some crazy legal bills as I remember...and he was acquitted or no billed.

"On June 30, 2008 a Harris County grand jury cleared Horn by issuing a no bill after two weeks of testimony." -Wikipedia. I'm sure his lawyers did this pro bono....ya, right.